ReviewSurgical endoscopy2024
Evaluation status of current and emerging minimally invasive robotic surgical platforms.
Review in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
36 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluating the Toumai MT‑1000 for urologic surgery: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis with remote and on-site experiences.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- 2025 Delphi consensus on robotic ventral mesh rectopexy.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Guideline
- Digital transformation of robotic surgery train the trainer 'TTT' courses: training the trainer in technique and technology (the 4Ts course).Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- First United States experience of robotic-assisted minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair using the Dexter surgical system.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Minimally invasive surgery in locally advanced colon cancer contributes to textbook outcome achievement and the long-term outcome.Surgery today · 2026Article
- The evolution of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery: current platforms, emerging technologies, and future perspectives - a narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Robotic Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Comparative Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Computer-assisted and image-guided surgery for surgical lymph-nodal staging of gynecologic cancer in the era of digital and robotic surgery: a review of current evidence.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- Miniaturization in robotic surgery: a bibliometric and science mapping analysis of technological evolution and clinical translation (1996-2026).Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-driven real-time assistance in minimally invasive surgery: a technology-oriented narrative review.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2026Review
- Port placement and patient-specific docking strategies for robotic hysterectomy with the Hugo™ RAS system: an international Delphi consensus.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2026Article
- White paper on effective preacquisition evaluation of soft tissue robotic surgery platforms for healthcare institutions.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Comparison of Features of Robotic Surgery Systems in Abdominal Surgeries: A Narrative Review Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Robotically Assisted Gastric Resections Using the hinotori™: A Cadaveric Feasibility Study.Digestive surgery · 2026Article
- Single-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: evaluating the Da Vinci SP system in minimally invasive urologic oncology.World journal of urology · 2025Review
- A head-mounted mixed reality platform for robotic flexible endoscope control in minimally invasive cholecystectomy: an animal feasibility study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Robotic surgery in healthcare: current challenges, technological advances, and global implementation prospects.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
- Procedural robotic surgery training: a UK pan-specialty trainee Delphi consensus study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Subjective workload in operating room team members during robotic hernia procedures.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Implementation of a Robotic Surgical Program With the Dexter Robotic Surgery System: Initial Experiences in Cholecystectomy.World journal of surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rapid adoption of robotics within minimally invasive surgical specialties has also seen an explosion of new technology including multi- and single port, natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), endoluminal and "on-demand" platforms. This review aims to evaluate the validation status of current and emerging MIS robotic platforms, using the IDEAL Framework.
methodsA scoping review exploring robotic minimally invasive surgical devices, technology and systems in use or being developed was performed, including general surgery, gynaecology, urology and cardiothoracics. Systems operating purely outside the abdomen or thorax and endoluminal or natural orifice platforms were excluded. PubMed, Google Scholar, journal reports and information from the public domain were collected. Each company was approached via email for a virtual interview to discover more about the systems and to quality check data. The IDEAL Framework is an internationally accepted tool to evaluate novel surgical technology, consisting of four stages: idea, development/exploration, assessment, and surveillance. An IDEAL stage, synonymous with validation status in this review, was assigned by reviewing the published literature.
results21 companies with 23 different robotic platforms were identified for data collection, 13 with national and/or international regulatory approval. Of the 17 multiport systems, 1 is fully evaluated at stage 4, 2 are stage 3, 6 stage 2b, 2 at stage 2a, 2 stage 1, and 4 at the pre-IDEAL stage 0. Of the 6 single-port systems none have been fully evaluated with 1 at stage 3, 3 at stage 1 and 2 at stage 0.
conclusionsThe majority of existing robotic platforms are currently at the preclinical to developmental and exploratory stage of evaluation. Using the IDEAL framework will ensure that emerging robotic platforms are fully evaluated with long-term data, to inform the surgical workforce and ensure patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.